A new boycott strategy targeting major AI and tech companies is gaining attention as an alternative to traditional protests against the Trump administration’s immigration policies. Scott Galloway, a marketing professor at New York University known for his Big Tech critiques, is calling for Americans to unsubscribe from services like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Amazon’s Prime Video, and Microsoft Office throughout February.
The proposal comes in response to Friday’s nationwide general strike protesting aggressive anti-immigration policies, which created financial hardship for small businesses forced to choose between supporting the cause and maintaining revenue. Galloway argues that a targeted month-long boycott of major tech services could be more effective than one-day shutdowns, potentially moving markets and influencing CEOs who have direct access to President Trump.
“We’re proposing something quieter and less cinematic than a protest that will run all day on cable TV, but much more disturbing to the Trump administration. A one-day slowdown is irritating. A one-month slump is terrifying,” Galloway wrote in his blog post.
The strategy specifically targets tech leaders who have cultivated relationships with the Trump administration. AI executives including OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg attended a White House dinner with Trump in September, where they praised the president. Apple CEO Tim Cook and Amazon CEO Andy Jassy also attended a White House premiere for a documentary about first lady Melania Trump during January’s anti-ICE protests.
Supporting the AI industry in its competition with China is a central pillar of Trump’s economic agenda, making these companies particularly influential. Galloway believes that even modest reductions in growth could significantly impact valuations for these tech giants, creating ripple effects that reach the White House.
The boycott proposal emerges amid ongoing protests against ICE and Border Patrol tactics, particularly following the January killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by federal immigration agents. While protests have raised awareness, they haven’t substantially shifted administration policies. The Department of Homeland Security demoted a Border Patrol official but simultaneously expanded ICE agents’ power to conduct warrantless searches.
Galloway’s approach represents a shift from street protests to economic pressure, arguing that “power doesn’t fear protests nearly as much as economic withdrawals” and that “the most radical act in a capitalist society isn’t marching, it’s not spending.”
Key Quotes
We’re proposing something quieter and less cinematic than a protest that will run all day on cable TV, but much more disturbing to the Trump administration. A one-day slowdown is irritating. A one-month slump is terrifying.
Scott Galloway, NYU marketing professor, explaining why a month-long tech boycott could be more effective than traditional one-day protests in pressuring the administration through economic impact on influential tech CEOs.
These are the leaders who have his ear. A modest reduction in their companies’ growth could have a substantial impact on valuations priced to perfection. Small changes in consumer behavior — starting on the first day of February — could have an enormous ripple effect, one that extends all the way to the White House.
Galloway describing how AI and tech executives’ close relationship with Trump makes their companies strategic targets for economic pressure, as even small revenue impacts could influence their political stance.
Real change always comes from the American people, not from our political parties. But power doesn’t fear protests nearly as much as economic withdrawals. Getting off your couch, taking to the streets, and building community is important, but the most radical act in a capitalist society isn’t marching, it’s not spending.
Galloway’s core argument for why economic boycotts of major tech and AI companies may be more effective than traditional street protests in creating political change.
Our Take
This boycott strategy reveals a critical vulnerability in the AI industry’s business model: dependence on sustained user engagement and subscription revenue. Companies like OpenAI have built their valuations on projected growth trajectories that assume continuous user adoption. A coordinated withdrawal, even temporary, could trigger investor concerns and stock volatility.
What’s particularly notable is the explicit connection between AI development and geopolitical competition with China as leverage. By making AI central to national strategy, the administration has inadvertently made these companies political actors whose consumer bases can now hold them accountable for their political alignments. This represents a new frontier in tech activism—using AI service subscriptions as political tools. Whether consumers will actually follow through remains uncertain, but the strategy acknowledges a fundamental truth: in the attention economy, withdrawal of engagement is the ultimate power move.
Why This Matters
This boycott strategy represents a significant intersection of AI industry influence, political activism, and consumer power. The targeting of AI companies like OpenAI specifically highlights how deeply embedded these firms have become in political power structures, with executives maintaining direct access to the White House. The fact that supporting AI development against China is a cornerstone of Trump’s economic agenda demonstrates the industry’s strategic importance.
This movement could set a precedent for how consumers leverage their relationship with AI services as a form of political expression. Unlike traditional boycotts of consumer goods, unsubscribing from AI tools like ChatGPT directly impacts the growth metrics and valuations of companies valued at billions. For an industry built on user engagement and subscription models, sustained consumer withdrawal could genuinely affect stock prices and investor confidence. The broader implication is that AI companies’ political entanglements may make them vulnerable to organized consumer action, potentially forcing tech leaders to reconsider their proximity to controversial policies or face financial consequences from their user base.
Related Stories
- Meta Q4 Earnings: Zuckerberg Bets Big on AI with $135B Capex Plan
- Big Tech’s 2025 AI Plans: Meta, Apple, Tesla, Google Unveil Roadmap
- OpenAI Lost Nearly Half of Its AI Safety Team, Ex-Researcher Says
- Microsoft’s Satya Nadella on OpenAI Partnership: Competition and Collaboration
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-ai-boycott-february-protest-ice-scott-galloway-2026-2